From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>
cc: Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: lwlocknames.h beautification attempt
In-reply-to: <CABwTF4VxfwDtRV-H22_XK4XeDogaV-Vaobu+af5U=8ZAZn9ZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABwTF4VxfwDtRV-H22_XK4XeDogaV-Vaobu+af5U=8ZAZn9ZZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>
	message dated "Sat, 01 Mar 2025 22:09:47 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3128011.1740896767.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 01:26:07 -0500
Message-ID: <3128012.1740896767@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3128012.1740896767%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> writes:
> I propose the following change to the generation script,
> generate-lwlocknames.pl
> ...
> which produces the lock names in this format

> #define ShmemIndexLock                 (&MainLWLockArray[1].lock)
> #define OidGenLock                     (&MainLWLockArray[2].lock)
> #define XidGenLock                     (&MainLWLockArray[3].lock)
> #define ProcArrayLock                  (&MainLWLockArray[4].lock)
> #define SInvalReadLock                 (&MainLWLockArray[5].lock)

This looks reasonably in line with project style ...

> Yet another format, which I prefer, can be achieved by right-aligning the
> lock names.

> #define                 ShmemIndexLock (&MainLWLockArray[1].lock)
> #define                     OidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[2].lock)
> #define                     XidGenLock (&MainLWLockArray[3].lock)
> #define                  ProcArrayLock (&MainLWLockArray[4].lock)
> #define                 SInvalReadLock (&MainLWLockArray[5].lock)

... but that doesn't.  I challenge you to provide even one example
of that layout in our source tree, or to explain why it's better.

			regards, tom lane